Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:16:07 01/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2005 at 00:01:16, Alex Newman wrote: >On January 16, 2005 at 15:14:58, Graham Banks wrote: > >>On January 16, 2005 at 15:10:55, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >> >>> Fruit 2.0 seems indeed to be a strong engine. In view >>> of the small number of games played in our test >>> http://www.utzingerk.com/fruit20_test.htm >>> it's too early for me to guess if Fruit 2.0 is >>> equal in strength with Aristarch 4.50 and List 5.12 >>> Kurt >> >> >>Ray will include Fruit 2.0 in his next 40 moves in 2 hours tournament along with >>Pharaon 3.2 and Aristarch 4.50. >> >>Graham. > >And I am sure Fruit won't do so well there. >Heavy pruning that Fruit does is very good for blitz, but it often makes engine >play bad at long time controls (of course, only if it's unable to find any >tactics). > >Alex If you think that history based pruning is a problem at long time control then it may be a good idea to test 2 versions of fruit when one of them does not use history based pruning by changing parameters of fruit. This is the only correct way to test if the heavy history based pruning of fruit is bad for long time control. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.